this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2023
1095 points (98.2% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

53462 readers
1589 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others



Loot, Pillage, & Plunder


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-FiLiberapay


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I am ashamed that I hadn’t reasoned this through given all the rubbish digital services have pulled with “purchases” being lies.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Stuka@lemmy.world 12 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (53 children)

Theft isn't specific to property, you can steal services too.

The water is certainly muddy with digital media, but this is just another oversimplified argument.

If you need to do mental gymnastics to feel OK about pirating then...idk find something better than this.

See comments below for more mental gymnastics

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works -2 points 8 months ago (33 children)

Theft isn’t specific to property, you can steal services too.

You can't really "steal" services, even though they sometimes call it that. You can access services without authorization, but you're not stealing anything. You can access services you don't have authorization to access and then disrupt people who are authorized to use those services. But, again, not stealing. Just disruption.

Stealing deprives a person of something, copyright infringement and unauthorized access to services don't.

[–] Stuka@lemmy.world -5 points 8 months ago (3 children)

I guess you can't steal anything when you just decide to limit the definition of the word.

But if we're in reality and using the way words are actually defined then yes you can steal something intangible, and no it does not require someone to be deprived of something.

[–] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

I'm not going to look up every state, but the Penal Code in some states explicitly define theft as:

A person commits an offense if he unlawfully appropriates property with intent to deprive the owner of property.

So, I think it is reasonable to include intent to deprive as part of the definition.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

decide to limit the definition of the word.

To what it actually means? Sure.

[–] Stuka@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

To selectively focus on one small sliver of the definition of the word, ignoring the full meaning of the word and the context to push your agenda? Smells like propaganda.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 5 points 8 months ago

The entire definition matters. There's already a term for "copyright infringement" it's "copyright infringement". Pretending it's theft is just a trick the copyright cartels are using to try to make it seem like a serious crime that has existed for millennia instead of a relatively new rule imposed in the last few centuries by the government, then made ridiculous by the entertainment cartel.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I guess you can't steal anything when you just decide to limit the definition of the word.

I guess you can steal anything when you expand the definition of the word to anything you want.

You live on the internet, it would take you 5 seconds to link to the "actual definition" you are using if the word was actually used that way.

load more comments (29 replies)
load more comments (48 replies)